I have realized that for certain NA questions, when I try to negate the answer choices, the answer choice gets even more confusing to understand. And I don't believe it is because I am negating it incorrectly, it just that when I negate the answer choice it does not make sense at all. Should I keep in mind that it is better to not use the negation method for certain NA questions or should I force myself to understand the negation of the answer choice?

Example question: PT101 S2 Q17

Does anyone know why A is correct here? There is no explanation video so I'm a little confused.

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

This question kinda had me befuddled in my initial PT and my blind review, and still I am struggling to understand the question after both. Any chance someone has a better idea of how we can arrive at the answer being C using the question stimulus?

Hello, I have not taken my first LSAT so far and I signed up for the August 2024 LSAt but I have not been scoring within my desired range. I am off by 15 points. I want to submit my applications by October. Should I reschedule for September or later?

I cannot find my notebook containing all my notes from the core curriculum, and was wondering if anyone had written down the recurring cookie cutter themes for the science passages (low resolution summaries). I vaguely remember there being like three separate themes with the one as follows: paragraph one containing two competing hypothesis then the second paragraph being an observation that might support one hypothesis over the other and so forth. If anyone could please help me out it would be greatly appreciated!!!!

Confused on what the value judgments section of LR questions is and how I can practice these types of questions

I always read all the ACs for LR because the extra seconds are worth it to find trick ACs. However, I find that in RC, that is not the case and that those few seconds might be better used understanding the passage. Should I be skipping the ACs when I find the right AC or should I read all the ACs before selecting an AC?

I also want to add that I am working exclusively through old PTs (PT1 through 30). I am not ready to use the new ones as I am not at a level where I want to waste those questions.

Hello all,

I am wondering how everyone knows the question is a type 2 MC question where the stem doesn't have a conclusion, since a lot of times the stem seems like it does... For example, PT116.S3.Q14 seems like the first sentence is the conclusion, and then the following sentence is a counter-point to the conclusion. The last sentence after that then reaffirms that the original conclusion could be true.

Any advice?

I have been doing LR drills with specific question type tags in the obsolete format to make sure I won't use up questions from Current Format prep tests that I will end up taking. (I want scores/analytics for prep tests to be as accurate as possible). Is this an okay way to study and improve? Or do the LR questions differ from obsolete to current format so drastically, that I am actually hurting myself by practicing in this format? #help

Hi all,

If you're interested in joining an LSAT study group (currently about 6ish of us who are consistent) where all we do is co-work on Discord, keep each other accountable via imessage and support each other message/ or comment below!

This isn't meant to be a study group where we review questions and Blind Review, but rather an accountability group for people, specifically first-gen/POC/"nontraditional folks" who struggle to keep a consistent schedule and need a little more support.

If you are the type of person that loves hyping/supporting other people and appreciates words of encouragement this is the group for you :)

Click here to read a little more about body doubling: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/body-doubling-adhd

E is the correct answer apparently, but E talks about persons, but it doesn't mention that they are on the committee, so how is this at all the correct answer?

So I'm registered to take the August LSAT and as I'm studying I've noticed it's more helpful to either be able to read it aloud or be able to have a physical copy in front of me. I assumed writing the LSAT in person in a writing centre meant it would be a pen-and-paper test however I just found out you'd still be writing it digitally. I have since decided I prefer to write it in person in a writing centre and would prefer a pen and paper test however, looking at the LSAC website I will need to apply for accommodations.

My questions now will follow: (1) do I have enough time to apply for accommodations and still be approved before having to write the LSAT in August? and (2) I don't have any disability/ diagnosis I notice that it helps me better understand what's being said, do I have to apply for accommodations with a Qualified Professional form?

In other words, is the only way to get this accommodation through having a diagnosed disability?

Thank you!

Archive

What are your best tips for mastering conditionals? I have been PTing much better than I was when I started studying but I am noticing trends in my NA/SA questions being incorrect, as well as a good deal of questions that involve condtional reasoning. I don't find the videos are too helpful in explaining why the wrong answers are wrong vs simply why the correct one is correct... SOS!!

Hello! I have been studying for the August LSAT, and feel like I have come a far way with LR/have been focusing most of my time on that. As I've started doing the more recent PTs, I have noticed my reading comprehension scores have been worse and I have been having a much harder time with them. I went from getting -2ish to -4 or 5. Specifically, I feel like I am running out of time or don't remember the parts of the passage that I need to. Accordingly, I've decided to turn most of my attention to RC.

Does anyone have any advice on what to study and practice for the next couple of weeks to hone in on a method to attack these passages? I began the RC core curriculum, but I'm not sure exactly what I should be getting out of it. Is time best spent reviewing these example videos, practicing on my own, or doing specific practice drills? Any advice would be appreciated :)

Hi, I’m confused about Q17, where the video mentions that (C) and (E) is part of Haffer’s hypothesis, but I don’t think it is? No where in the passage does it state that upland is more diverse or more dense than low land. It says that low land is drier (which could imply that rain forest-like organisms likely prefer upland), but this feels like overstepping the bounds of the types of assumptions that we as readers can make. The only thing that Haffer says about the difference between lowland and upland currently is that (1) low land is drier and (2) they differ in terms of species.

Hello, I have been doing Blind Review and WAJing according to the lessons in the syllabus for LR and I found them extremely helpful. I was wondering if there is anything different I should do in terms of blind reviewing and WAJing for RC?

For this weakening question, I understand that I need to find evidence that points towards Neanderthals not being nomadic but I dont understand how the correct answer choice (Neanderthals saved gazelle teeth for use in religous rituals and later discarded them) helps prove that they are not nomadic.

Hey, does anyone know how i could get access to the RC PDF's? Looking to improve my untimed practice and i could not find it on the website.

Thanks guys!

Anyone have tips on how to best practice formal logic? I'm really getting beat up on those NA/SA questions :(

Hi there! I am having a horrible time focusing during RC, especially when it is last out of the 4 sections,

Any pointers or courses dedicated to concentration?

I feel like I'm getting burned by questions that don't use the exhaustive formal logic to solve them.

For example, PT 126 Section 3 Question 14 uses 'most' in a 'most strongly supported' context -- here, validity of invalid/valid argument forms involving 'most' are basically irrelevant, despite the fact that the curriculum exclusively focuses on 'most' in that context. The correct answer choice makes the stimulus more likely, but it doesn't prove validity.

This is a recurring problem across several PT's. For example, see PT 127, Section 2, Question 24. Just like before, pure formal translation and logic doesn't get you the answer. Additionally, see PT 127 Section 1 Question 25. Again, where simply doing 7sage's formal translations and logic doesn't get you the answer. PT 139 Section 1 Question 22 is another example where simply translating 'most' and looking for a 'lawgic' inference doesn't guarantee success. As an additional example, I would argue that in PT 120 Section 1 Question 24 trying to translate the 'most' 'lawgic' actually gets in your way than if you just focus on the other elements of the stimulus.

The curriculum doesn't even cover that there's sometimes a more easily understand application of the word 'most.' For example, PT 119 Section 3 Question 9 uses the phrase 'the most common response' to indicate 'the #1 response.' PT 138 Section 3 Question 4 also involves this verbiage; 'the most polluted cities' are used to indicate 'the top polluted cities.'

There are also questions that reference the word 'most' but in a very irrelevant kind of way (understanding 'most' has very little to do with the reasoning to get the answer right). For example, see PT 131 Section 3 Question 7. PT B Section 4 Question 18 involves the useage of the word 'most often,' and again, formal 7sage lawgic has no answer for how to deal with the application of 'most' in this kind of question..

There are also answer choices that involve your understanding of the application of 'most' with probabilities (and what they can and can't mean). For example, PT 133 Section 3 Question 21. Another example where you need to be confident in 'most''s limitations and strengths as a strengthener is evaluating answer choice D in PT 19 Section 2 Question 18.

PT 151 Section 2 Question 12 involves a very weak usage of the word 'most' to weaken a question.

TLDR: I feel like I don't have a grasp of the word 'most' when it is not used in a formal lawgic context on the LSAT. I find it hard to push out inferences for these questions, especially because the curriculum doesn't really teach 'most' outside of a 'lawgic' context. I added a TON of examples (from across 12 prep tests!) and there are many many more I didn't include. Any advice? Tips? Recommendations? Thoughts?

Hey! Can someone please explain what this answer choice means/give an example of when it would be correct?

I'm taking my LSAT around August 10th. When is a good time to finish up my studying?

I need an explanation for this question, please!